Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Governor Hochul seeks ‘alternatives’ to LaGuardia AirTrain


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Eric B said:

Astoria wats their local and express services, and not just one local. Taking the N away still won't do anything abou tall the other delays, and not just merging; that's probably the least problem.

Most riders in Astoria are already off the train by 34th Street-Herald Square, so there is almost no need for express trains on Astoria. Rerouting the (R) back to Astoria will also be supplemented by other changes, namely moving the (N) to 96th Street with the (Q), increasing frequency on the Second Avenue Line. The (W) would also be absorbed into additional (R) runs. With this and the Astoria extension, the new (R) route to LaGuardia would operate at 20 trains per hour (potentially you could run more if it weren't for the curves at City Hall and possibly the curves at 57th Street), more than the current train frequency provided today by the (N) and (W). This allows for a service boost on the entire Broadway Line and solve delays.

54 minutes ago, Eric B said:

Those are two long blocks, and els are outmoded in NYC (the ones that remain are 'grandfathered' in), so no one wants them expanded anywhere by even that much.

Astoria politics has changed since 2003, and since a lot of the politicians that opposed it are gone, it could be palatable to build an elevated through the area, especially if we make a modern elevated structure that is a little more compact (the whole thing would be two tracks) and made of concrete, which makes it less noisy and less subject to a rain of debris.

56 minutes ago, Eric B said:

And I never said to take away (7) service to Flushing. I was referring to using spce on the Port Washington Branch, and not taking away service to Long Island, but adding a dedicated service from Willets Point to the city

The Port Washington Line would continue to be infrequent and also out of reach to most travelers in terms of cost.

56 minutes ago, Eric B said:

One seat ride with many stops, and the greater crowds of the subway (even if you do manage to get the first seats. And think rush hours, with all that luggage. It woukd be inconvenient to both travelers and regular commuters!) And I already mentioned that too much is being made of this "wrong direction". It's not as out of the way as you think. If you look at it, going across 19th Ave. to 31't is just as much going in the "wrong direction", as the grid is more tilted, so you're going north as well as west, and again, only to pick up a whole line of local stops. With GCP, you're going only slightly east, but also south, which is part of the right direction. And it's a fast, dedicated line with no stops that takes you right to the LIRR. 

The Astoria extension would actually make trips quicker, since it's only 15 stops to Midtown, compared to the 19 on the (7). 20 (R) trains per hour would be enough to accommodate both airport travelers and regular commuters, compared to the 15 on todays (N) and (W), which means more available seats for everyone.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone can elaborate on the legal issues with these proposals for an old man. Isn't  LGA Port Authority property ? Likewise doesn't this apply to JFK and EWR also ? I don't see the PANY&NJ allowing the (MTA) or NJT to run any type of heavy duty rail onto their property. In other words it's AirTrain or nothing. Remember where the (JFK) Express terminated ? Now explain to me how travelers on the Astoria Line can possibly get a " One Seat Ride " to LGA from the subway system or the LIRR. It seems to me that some of these ideas straddle the line between fantasy and outright illegality. We actually discussed this in schoolcar 40 years ago.  My opinion. though. Carry on.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Other cities - in America and around the world - made it happen. Why can’t New York make it happen? Why is New York so different and “special” that the PA are allowed to keep the subway off airport property and will only allow the running of their own proprietary services like AirTrain and we only get two choices: “Take it or leave it”? Tell me why the PA and the MTA can’t work together on this. Tell me why we have to have these ridiculous “turf wars” between sclerotic agencies that force us to accept inferior service and travel options.

Yes, an Astoria subway extension provides no direct connection to the LIRR (unless you ride all the way to Atlantic Ave, Brooklyn). But it does provide direct service to many popular Midtown Manhattan destinations. Doesn’t that count for anything? Do CTA’s Blue and Orange lines have direct connections to Metra? Do WMATA’s Blue and Yellow lines connect directly to MARC? (They do connect to VRE.)

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Other cities - in America and around the world - made it happen. Why can’t New York make it happen? Why is New York so different and “special” that the PA are allowed to keep the subway off airport property and will only allow the running of their own proprietary services like AirTrain and we only get two choices: “Take it or leave it”? Tell me why the PA and the MTA can’t work together on this. Tell me why we have to have these ridiculous “turf wars” between sclerotic agencies that force us to accept inferior service and travel options.

Yes, an Astoria subway extension provides no direct connection to the LIRR (unless you ride all the way to Atlantic Ave, Brooklyn). But it does provide direct service to many popular Midtown Manhattan destinations. Doesn’t that count for anything? Do CTA’s Blue and Orange lines have direct connections to Metra? Do WMATA’s Blue and Yellow lines connect directly to MARC? (They do connect to VRE.)

Because the states of NY and NJ signed covenants giving exclusive access rights to the Port Authority back in the day. It’s considered interstate commerce IIRC. That’s what we were taught in school. I happen to agree with you but it’s a federal issue not a local thing. Carry on.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Most riders in Astoria are already off the train by 34th Street-Herald Square, so there is almost no need for express trains on Astoria. Rerouting the (R) back to Astoria will also be supplemented by other changes, namely moving the (N) to 96th Street with the (Q), increasing frequency on the Second Avenue Line. The (W) would also be absorbed into additional (R) runs. With this and the Astoria extension, the new (R) route to LaGuardia would operate at 20 trains per hour (potentially you could run more if it weren't for the curves at City Hall and possibly the curves at 57th Street), more than the current train frequency provided today by the (N) and (W). This allows for a service boost on the entire Broadway Line and solve delays.

Astoria politics has changed since 2003, and since a lot of the politicians that opposed it are gone, it could be palatable to build an elevated through the area, especially if we make a modern elevated structure that is a little more compact (the whole thing would be two tracks) and made of concrete, which makes it less noisy and less subject to a rain of debris.

The Port Washington Line would continue to be infrequent and also out of reach to most travelers in terms of cost.

The Astoria extension would actually make trips quicker, since it's only 15 stops to Midtown, compared to the 19 on the (7). 20 (R) trains per hour would be enough to accommodate both airport travelers and regular commuters, compared to the 15 on todays (N) and (W), which means more available seats for everyone.

So it's the (R) you want extended. But now you're recreating the old problem of having no yard, unless woul want to build a new yard over there somewhere as well (which is now more monen and much more property).

It's not simply periodoc politics, nobody is goign to want an el of any kind run down their street, right in front of their windows (there are larger apartment buildings on those blocks). Trainmaster mentioned the potential problem of running on PA property, but there's also the CON-ED property being mentioned, which is probably full of industrial hazards.

I don't think Second avenue at this point needs two lines. Maybe once extended to 125th, and IF it draws a lot of IRT riders there, but ven then, there was never any plan to have a second line until phas 3 (below 63rd, aka the (T).
And so now, QBL will have no Broadway service?
All of these changes to the subway are far less simple than the Airtrain.

On the last two statements, you dismiss the Port Washington Branch as continuing to be infrequent, and then go back to the inconvenience of using the (7), but you would increase the frequency to a new dedicated terminal for the airport service at Willets Point (and if the rest of the line is infrequent, then the new service should have no problem being added), and it can have a reduced price from the rest of the railroad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eric B said:

So it's the (R) you want extended. But now you're recreating the old problem of having no yard, unless woul want to build a new yard over there somewhere as well (which is now more monen and much more property).

Alongside (or instead of) a new yard, there would also be service changes on the Brooklyn end of the (R) route. Here, with two new switches installed south of 36th Street, the (D) and (R) routes would swap (I'm being a bit conservative over there). The (R) would switch onto the West End Line and travel to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, while the (D) would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street and make all the local (R) train stops to Bay Ridge-95th Street. This negates the (R) train yard access issue since it allows for the line to have direct access to the existing Coney Island Yard. (D) service would operate at 12 trains per hour and (R) trains would operate at 20 trains per hour, more than current service on both routes.

4 hours ago, Eric B said:

It's not simply periodoc politics, nobody is goign to want an el of any kind run down their street, right in front of their windows (there are larger apartment buildings on those blocks). Trainmaster mentioned the potential problem of running on PA property, but there's also the CON-ED property being mentioned, which is probably full of industrial hazards.

If we can build a modern elevated structure near residential homes in South Ozone Park, then we can sure as hell build two new blocks of modern elevated structures along 31st Street in Astoria. As a consolation, there could be a new stop at 20th Avenue for them to use. As for the Con-Edison property, this was one of my concerns when I was opposed to this two-three years ago, but it could be mitigated with MTA buying part of the property and building a wall to prevent explosions over there.

5 hours ago, Eric B said:

I don't think Second avenue at this point needs two lines. Maybe once extended to 125th, and IF it draws a lot of IRT riders there, but ven then, there was never any plan to have a second line until phas 3 (below 63rd, aka the (T).

Second Avenue Subway having two routes could give the (4) and (5) some pretty good competition. The line is already pretty popular, with its ridership goals of 200,000 people already met for Phase 1 alone. If we can replace all the overflow (N) and (R) train with every single (N) and (Q) train going there at a frequency of 20+ trains per hour, then more people would be inclined to use the line as well, even when Phase 2 opens.

5 hours ago, Eric B said:

And so now, QBL will have no Broadway service?
All of these changes to the subway are far less simple than the Airtrain.

Modified service on Queens Blvd going to the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Line, plus some new transfers, all of which can be implemented even before a subway extension is built, can mitigate the lack of Broadway Line service on QBL. This is considering that all the West Side lines operate within one block of each other, especially the 6th Avenue, Lower 8th Avenue Line, and the IRT Broadway-7th Avenue Line. It's all the matter of riders making the short walk from a nearby station with a transfer in a few cases.

5 hours ago, Eric B said:

On the last two statements, you dismiss the Port Washington Branch as continuing to be infrequent, and then go back to the inconvenience of using the (7), but you would increase the frequency to a new dedicated terminal for the airport service at Willets Point (and if the rest of the line is infrequent, then the new service should have no problem being added), and it can have a reduced price from the rest of the railroad.

That still doesn't negate the fact that the PW Line at Willets Point is more out of the way compared to the other options. There's a reason why the Q70 goes to the Woodside-61st Street stop rather than anywhere else: it serves the more frequent main line.

Ultimately a compromise to this is to have an AirTrain not from Willets Point, but to Long Island City at the Queens Plaza station, which is much closer to Manhattan and serves more subway (and LIRR when Sunnyside opens) lines than at Willets Point. It also replicates original plans for the AirTrain to the airports. However, a subway extension would not be ruled out with this, especially since the subway extension would serve an additional area as well. After all, other cities can build direct subway links to the airport (Chicago even built an elevated Orange Line link to Midway Airport serving the Southwest Side), so why can't NYC?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Alongside (or instead of) a new yard, there would also be service changes on the Brooklyn end of the (R) route. Here, with two new switches installed south of 36th Street, the (D) and (R) routes would swap (I'm being a bit conservative over there). The (R) would switch onto the West End Line and travel to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, while the (D) would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street and make all the local (R) train stops to Bay Ridge-95th Street. This negates the (R) train yard access issue since it allows for the line to have direct access to the existing Coney Island Yard. (D) service would operate at 12 trains per hour and (R) trains would operate at 20 trains per hour, more than current service on both routes.

Second Avenue Subway having two routes could give the (4) and (5) some pretty good competition. The line is already pretty popular, with its ridership goals of 200,000 people already met for Phase 1 alone. If we can replace all the overflow (N) and (R) train with every single (N) and (Q) train going there at a frequency of 20+ trains per hour, then more people would be inclined to use the line as well, even when Phase 2 opens.

Modified service on Queens Blvd going to the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Line, plus some new transfers, all of which can be implemented even before a subway extension is built, can mitigate the lack of Broadway Line service on QBL. This is considering that all the West Side lines operate within one block of each other, especially the 6th Avenue, Lower 8th Avenue Line, and the IRT Broadway-7th Avenue Line. It's all the matter of riders making the short walk from a nearby station with a transfer in a few cases.

Wow, that's like such a domino effect, spanning across the system! (Including more construction in the existing system, like at 36th!) The current plan seems much simpler to me.

Quote

If we can build a modern elevated structure near residential homes in South Ozone Park, then we can sure as hell build two new blocks of modern elevated structures along 31st Street in Astoria. As a consolation, there could be a new stop at 20th Avenue for them to use. As for the Con-Edison property, this was one of my concerns when I was opposed to this two-three years ago, but it could be mitigated with MTA buying part of the property and building a wall to prevent explosions over there.

It's not really "near" residential homes; it's down the center of a big expressway, rather than right down the middle of a residential (not even fully commercial like south of Ditmars) street.

Quote

That still doesn't negate the fact that the PW Line at Willets Point is more out of the way compared to the other options. There's a reason why the Q70 goes to the Woodside-61st Street stop rather than anywhere else: it serves the more frequent main line.

Ultimately a compromise to this is to have an AirTrain not from Willets Point, but to Long Island City at the Queens Plaza station, which is much closer to Manhattan and serves more subway (and LIRR when Sunnyside opens) lines than at Willets Point. It also replicates original plans for the AirTrain to the airports. However, a subway extension would not be ruled out with this, especially since the subway extension would serve an additional area as well. After all, other cities can build direct subway links to the airport (Chicago even built an elevated Orange Line link to Midway Airport serving the Southwest Side), so why can't NYC?

But it not being on one of the busier lines leaves more capacity for a dedicated, or at least more focused service. And then Woodside will be the next stop.

I would say going the other way down the highway to Woodside or LIC would be more direct, but it's not as simple, because the BQE is in a much tighter space and doesn't have the grassy space they could use to moce the lanes over to add the guideway to the median, and then you have to get from the BQE to the Woodside station, and with the (7) there, or get from the BQE to what; Sunnyside yard, to get to LIC? All of these other ideas are much more complicated, and you know they're trying to do what's more simple and cheap,a nd less disruptive. It's still better than what we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Eric B said:

Wow, that's like such a domino effect, spanning across the system! (Including more construction in the existing system, like at 36th!) The current plan seems much simpler to me.

It should be because deinterlining is somewhat like a complete overhaul of the subway system's service patterns to fix other problems in the system, similar to the effects of the Chrystie Street Connection. When that opened, multiple subway lines were altered to provide new travel options and more service for riders. It's like demolishing a house entirely and rebuilding the whole thing from the bottom up to fix all the issues of the house. The two new switches would take at most two weekends to construct, and could be done even before the subway extension starts construction, but they can have lasting effects for all riders (and in a good way). Just because it's simple doesn't always mean it's the right solution.

20 minutes ago, Eric B said:

It's not really "near" residential homes; it's down the center of a big expressway, rather than right down the middle of a residential (not even fully commercial like south of Ditmars) street.

Well it's almost the same thing, though Ditmars can be wide enough to support a smaller two-track structure. 

20 minutes ago, Eric B said:

But it not being on one of the busier lines leaves more capacity for a dedicated, or at least more focused service. And then Woodside will be the next stop.

But you also seem to neglect that it's still out of the way, and it's reach is limited. It's only going to Penn Station or Grand Central. By contrast, a direct subway extension via the Broadway Line can take you to Midtown, Lower Manhattan, and Downtown Brooklyn on one train, with more opportunities to connect to the rest of the system.

22 minutes ago, Eric B said:

I would say going the other way down the highway to Woodside or LIC would be more direct, but it's not as simple, because the BQE is in a much tighter space and doesn't have the grassy space they could use to moce the lanes over to add the guideway to the median, and then you have to get from the BQE to the Woodside station, and with the (7) there, or get from the BQE to what; Sunnyside yard, to get to LIC? All of these other ideas are much more complicated, and you know they're trying to do what's more simple and cheap,a nd less disruptive. It's still better than what we have now.

I'm not proposing the line go down the BQE all the way into the Woodside station. I'm not sure what the original plan for the AirTrain was in 1990, but I aim to roughly follow that. Here, I am proposing the line leave the BQE at 31st Avenue, travel along 31st to the Northeast Corridor tracks, and travel along the east side of the NE Corridor tracks through Sunnyside Yard to Queens Blvd, where it would head up that street terminate right next to the Queensboro Plaza station, where riders would transfer to the Flushing and Astoria Line to their destination. This route could connect with the proposed line to Willets Point and come down the Van Wyck to connect with the JFK AirTrain, (almost) fulfilling the original 1990 plan.

If there is anything when it comes to project proposals, its that most times the cheaper option is not the most effective option.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2021 at 9:42 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

Because the states of NY and NJ signed covenants giving exclusive access rights to the Port Authority back in the day. It’s considered interstate commerce IIRC. That’s what we were taught in school. I happen to agree with you but it’s a federal issue not a local thing. Carry on.

This is half-true. Port Authority is the operator of the ports, but the legal landowner of Fiorello La Guardia Airport is the City.

In any case, it's not totally impossible.

  • (1) Cortlandt literally runs straight through the Port-owned Oculus
  • The Dulles Airport authority is literally paying to build a DC Metro extension
  • Neither the PATH nor JFK AirTrain are particularly profitable, and the latter has seen price hikes and service cuts for an automated train that make the MTA look like Santa Claus

That being said, the Port Authority is also not willing to extend their own goddamn PATH train to EWR's actual terminals, so it's not like sanity prevails over there.

  • Like 2
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

That being said, the Port Authority is also not willing to extend their own goddamn PATH train to EWR's actual terminals, so it's not like sanity prevails over there.

THIS. Port Authority went off the rails on the crazy train once they started dabbling in real estate and other sideshows.  If I recall correctly, the Twin Towers themselves did not reach full occupancy until the early '90s or something.  Two decades after they went up, basically. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

THIS. Port Authority went off the rails on the crazy train once they started dabbling in real estate and other sideshows.  If I recall correctly, the Twin Towers themselves did not reach full occupancy until the early '90s or something.  Two decades after they went up, basically. 

To be fair, that is true of literally every record-breaking office development that has ever opened (Empire State Building, 30 Rock, the Sears Tower, 1WTC, the Burj Dubai, etc.), because the only time you can finance such developments is at the top of the market, and by the time construction is completed your economy is likely already well into recession.

But yes, the original deal with the devil was that the Port Authority would get the Hudson's Terminal property if it also took on the financially struggling railroad it was attached to, and PATH has not really gotten significantly better, nor have we actually finished building out all of WTC (and we probably won't, ever.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

THIS. Port Authority went off the rails on the crazy train once they started dabbling in real estate and other sideshows.  If I recall correctly, the Twin Towers themselves did not reach full occupancy until the early '90s or something.  Two decades after they went up, basically. 

Not surprising.  It has to be remembered the reason the WTC was built in the first place was to revitalize The Financial District, which was looked at as dying in the early 1960's as it was virtually a ghost town after 3:00 PM (stock market used to only be open from 10:00 AM-3:00 PM back then).  Hardly anyone lived there back then and the area was nothing like it is now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is half-true. Port Authority is the operator of the ports, but the legal landowner of Fiorello La Guardia Airport is the City.

In any case, it's not totally impossible.

  • (1) Cortlandt literally runs straight through the Port-owned Oculus
  • The Dulles Airport authority is literally paying to build a DC Metro extension
  • Neither the PATH nor JFK AirTrain are particularly profitable, and the latter has seen price hikes and service cuts for an automated train that make the MTA look like Santa Claus

That being said, the Port Authority is also not willing to extend their own goddamn PATH train to EWR's actual terminals, so it's not like sanity prevails over there.

You are correct that the PA is the operator of the airports. Same applies to the NYC subway system where the city owns it but (MTA) operates it.

(1) predates the World Trade Center making the PA the interloper in that case.

Your point about PATH / EWR  indirectly answers the LGA situation.

Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2021 at 8:39 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

It should be because deinterlining is somewhat like a complete overhaul of the subway system's service patterns to fix other problems in the system, similar to the effects of the Chrystie Street Connection. When that opened, multiple subway lines were altered to provide new travel options and more service for riders. It's like demolishing a house entirely and rebuilding the whole thing from the bottom up to fix all the issues of the house. The two new switches would take at most two weekends to construct, and could be done even before the subway extension starts construction, but they can have lasting effects for all riders (and in a good way). Just because it's simple doesn't always mean it's the right solution.

But with Chrystie St, lines were changed because they were directly affected by the new construction. Not "well, you have to change this line, of a necessity to accommodate that line, that was changed by some construction somewhere else, and not even in the subway system. 

And if I remember correctly, there is no provisions for a switch south of 36th, so you're removing walls and columns and having to then re-support the whole tunnel structure. That is major construction, and why they haven't put in the switch for the southbound 6th Av. local to access the Manhattan Bridge. 

Quote

Well it's almost the same thing, though Ditmars can be wide enough to support a smaller two-track structure. 

Should also mention, Ditmars may be just as wide on those two blocks, but you'll still have to remove all their trees to fit the el. So you're not only taking away the air space of the street (no matter how small they make it), but also taking away the greenery. Who will ever go for that? (The stretch of the street with the el is mostly commercial).

Quote

But you also seem to neglect that it's still out of the way, and it's reach is limited. It's only going to Penn Station or Grand Central. By contrast, a direct subway extension via the Broadway Line can take you to Midtown, Lower Manhattan, and Downtown Brooklyn on one train, with more opportunities to connect to the rest of the system.

And again, a one seat ride may be nice, but you're dealing with all the luggage in the crowds, as well as the delays of the system (which simple "deinterlining" is not going to be enough to help). You can get connections to all those palces at Penn Station or GCT, and not everyone is going to those places; again, it's not a commuter line.

Quote

I'm not proposing the line go down the BQE all the way into the Woodside station. I'm not sure what the original plan for the AirTrain was in 1990, but I aim to roughly follow that. Here, I am proposing the line leave the BQE at 31st Avenue, travel along 31st to the Northeast Corridor tracks, and travel along the east side of the NE Corridor tracks through Sunnyside Yard to Queens Blvd, where it would head up that street terminate right next to the Queensboro Plaza station, where riders would transfer to the Flushing and Astoria Line to their destination. This route could connect with the proposed line to Willets Point and come down the Van Wyck to connect with the JFK AirTrain, (almost) fulfilling the original 1990 plan.

So now, this is not a subway extension you're proposing, but rather a different Aitrain routing, connecting to the current plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Eric B said:

And if I remember correctly, there is no provisions for a switch south of 36th, so you're removing walls and columns and having to then re-support the whole tunnel structure. That is major construction, and why they haven't put in the switch for the southbound 6th Av. local to access the Manhattan Bridge. 

There is actually a provision for new switches south of 36th Street in Brooklyn, just a but farther than you think. Take a look at this map here: 4thaveprov.png

31 minutes ago, Eric B said:

Should also mention, Ditmars may be just as wide on those two blocks, but you'll still have to remove all their trees to fit the el. So you're not only taking away the air space of the street (no matter how small they make it), but also taking away the greenery. Who will ever go for that? (The stretch of the street with the el is mostly commercial).

Much of the trees and greenery could be restored as mitigation for that. There could also be the potential for having the elevated supports be in the center of the street, eliminating the need to remove trees from the sidewalk. It can also help create a safer traffic pattern that is less conductive to speeding.

32 minutes ago, Eric B said:

And again, a one seat ride may be nice, but you're dealing with all the luggage in the crowds, as well as the delays of the system (which simple "deinterlining" is not going to be enough to help). You can get connections to all those palces at Penn Station or GCT, and not everyone is going to those places; again, it's not a commuter line.

Almost every subway car would be outfitted with luggage racks to stem any issues, similar to have buses may have had. The deinterlining would also help to increase train frequency, because with this plus the extension, the entire Astoria Line would go from 15 trains per hour to 20 trains per hour, allowing for less congested trains overall. An extra 5 trains per hour could make a big benefit.

In addition, other transit alternatives would remain, such as the current bus service to LaGuardia, including the M60 and Q70, so not all riders would take the train, but much of the ridership. I'm also looking into other alternatives, especially one that would not go to Manhattan or Willets Point.

35 minutes ago, Eric B said:

So now, this is not a subway extension you're proposing, but rather a different Aitrain routing, connecting to the current plan?

This AirTrain was never planned to be a subway extension, but rather a different system. This is a different AirTrain routing connected to the current routing, adn I'm proposing this as one alternative to extending the Astoria Line.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Eric B said:

But with Chrystie St, lines were changed because they were directly affected by the new construction. Not "well, you have to change this line, of a necessity to accommodate that line, that was changed by some construction somewhere else, and not even in the subway system. 

But that doesn't stop them from making wholesale changes on lines elsewhere, even if not directly impacted by anything. They did this in 1987, when the (N) and (R) swap impacted a number of other lines, and several lines were altered in 1998 due to Archer Avenue (even lines that were not directly impacted), specifically with the (K) merging into the (B) and (C).

What's wrong with making holistic changes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Port Authority went off the rails on the crazy train once they started dabbling in real estate and other sideshows.

They even financed a bus order for the (MTA), and I believe some Port Authority bonds were used to buy rail equipment in the 80's as well.

PANYNJ was quite the benevolent agency back in the day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, paulrivera said:

They even financed a bus order for the (MTA), and I believe some Port Authority bonds were used to buy rail equipment in the 80's as well.

PANYNJ was quite the benevolent agency back in the day...

That's because some posters are unfamiliar with the history and the underpinnings of mass transit in the metropolitan area. They don't understand that the PANY&NJ, Via the two states and the bondholders, are the final arbiters of what gets built in the area because money talks. I remember walking around Livonia Yard and noticing that the PA, and not the MTA,  purchased the R62a cars on the (3) line back then. Each car had a plate stamped with that information located near the undercarriage. I look at the present financial outlook of the MTA and wonder if some posters understand what the real situation is. We're getting new subway cars,  a new signal system,  and an additional phase of the SAS. Only if the Federal government provides most of the money. The PA PATH system is not as constrained as NYCT is. Some of my friends and older family members have seen this program before. Southern Queens,  Utica Avenue are still awaiting promised relief,  50 years for Queens and 70 years for Utica. Our consensus is that CBTC gets completed,  some new rolling stock is purchased on a stretched schedule and the SAS expansion is next generation,  if ever. BTW,  the CBTC project lets trains run closer but where is it guaranteed that more service will be provided ? That's because with flexible hours and WFH options taking hold the traditional rush hours aren't that necessary any more. Before the argument that these improvements are paid for look up the R11" fleet " history and get back to me. My people and I see history being repeated yet many posters and the press are ignoring the obvious.  My thoughts.  Carry on. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, paulrivera said:

They even financed a bus order for the (MTA), and I believe some Port Authority bonds were used to buy rail equipment in the 80's as well.

PANYNJ was quite the benevolent agency back in the day...

 

10 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

That's because some posters are unfamiliar with the history and the underpinnings of mass transit in the metropolitan area. They don't understand that the PANY&NJ, Via the two states and the bondholders, are the final arbiters of what gets built in the area because money talks. I remember walking around Livonia Yard and noticing that the PA, and not the MTA,  purchased the R62a cars on the (3) line back then. Each car had a plate stamped with that information located near the undercarriage. I look at the present financial outlook of the MTA and wonder if some posters understand what the real situation is. We're getting new subway cars,  a new signal system,  and an additional phase of the SAS. Only if the Federal government provides most of the money. The PA PATH system is not as constrained as NYCT is. Some of my friends and older family members have seen this program before. Southern Queens,  Utica Avenue are still awaiting promised relief,  50 years for Queens and 70 years for Utica. Our consensus is that CBTC gets completed,  some new rolling stock is purchased on a stretched schedule and the SAS expansion is next generation,  if ever. BTW,  the CBTC project lets trains run closer but where is it guaranteed that more service will be provided ? That's because with flexible hours and WFH options taking hold the traditional rush hours aren't that necessary any more. Before the argument that these improvements are paid for look up the R11" fleet " history and get back to me. My people and I see history being repeated yet many posters and the press are ignoring the obvious.  My thoughts.  Carry on. 

 

This is also the impetus behind TBTA being included in the MTA, and future congestion pricing. The root problem though, is that for whatever reason you want to believe (not getting into the controversy), it is undeniable that MTA operating and capital costs are climbing beyond the scope of reasonable revenue increases and inflation; additional revenue sources are the equivalent of patching up the Titanic with duct tape.

This is why I moved somewhere shit is actually getting done.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 12:20 AM, paulrivera said:

They even financed a bus order for the (MTA), and I believe some Port Authority bonds were used to buy rail equipment in the 80's as well.

PANYNJ was quite the benevolent agency back in the day...

They sure were. What they hell happened to the Port Authority? Now all they seem to want to do is play “turf wars” with the other NYC-area agencies like the MTA. 

On 10/10/2021 at 5:19 AM, Trainmaster5 said:

That's because some posters are unfamiliar with the history and the underpinnings of mass transit in the metropolitan area. They don't understand that the PANY&NJ, Via the two states and the bondholders, are the final arbiters of what gets built in the area because money talks. I remember walking around Livonia Yard and noticing that the PA, and not the MTA,  purchased the R62a cars on the (3) line back then. Each car had a plate stamped with that information located near the undercarriage. I look at the present financial outlook of the MTA and wonder if some posters understand what the real situation is. We're getting new subway cars,  a new signal system,  and an additional phase of the SAS. Only if the Federal government provides most of the money. The PA PATH system is not as constrained as NYCT is. Some of my friends and older family members have seen this program before. Southern Queens,  Utica Avenue are still awaiting promised relief,  50 years for Queens and 70 years for Utica. Our consensus is that CBTC gets completed,  some new rolling stock is purchased on a stretched schedule and the SAS expansion is next generation,  if ever. BTW,  the CBTC project lets trains run closer but where is it guaranteed that more service will be provided ? That's because with flexible hours and WFH options taking hold the traditional rush hours aren't that necessary any more. Before the argument that these improvements are paid for look up the R11" fleet " history and get back to me. My people and I see history being repeated yet many posters and the press are ignoring the obvious.  My thoughts.  Carry on. 

 

So what is the obvious then? That the MTA can’t afford to do anything without financial assistance from the Feds? Well, yes. But hasn’t that always been the case? I mean, the MTA were already crying “Fiscal crisis!” in 2017-18, well before the words “Covid-19 pandemic” became an everyday part of our reading.

The PA and MTA’s foolish and tragically short-sighted turf wars and the lack of City and State pols who take mass transit seriously are what’s wrong with transportation in the NYC area. Not to mention the MTA’s lack of a real planning department, akin to what the MTA in LA has.   It may be a long time before all of their rail projects get built (and possibly some of them won’t) but what they’re doing over there and what they have planned will make your head spin. It did for me.

https://www.metro.net/projects/

Admittedly, Metro’s plan for a train to LAX is an automated people mover that connects to the Green and Crenshaw light rail lines just outside airport property. But keep in mind that LAX is their JFK, so the same issues presented with having a proper subway or LIRR line directly to JFK might have been present with having a proper light rail line to a big international airport like with its many terminals arranged in a giant circle like LAX and JFK (LGA is a much smaller airport).
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

They sure were. What they hell happened to the Port Authority? Now all they seem to want to do is play “turf wars” with the other NYC-area agencies like the MTA. 

So what is the obvious then? That the MTA can’t afford to do anything without financial assistance from the Feds? Well, yes. But hasn’t that always been the case? I mean, the MTA were already crying “Fiscal crisis!” in 2017-18, well before the words “Covid-19 pandemic” became an everyday part of our reading.

The PA and MTA’s foolish and tragically short-sighted turf wars and the lack of City and State pols who take mass transit seriously are what’s wrong with transportation in the NYC area. Not to mention the MTA’s lack of a real planning department, akin to what the MTA in LA has.   It may be a long time before all of their rail projects get built (and possibly some of them won’t) but what they’re doing over there and what they have planned will make your head spin. It did for me.

https://www.metro.net/projects/

Admittedly, Metro’s plan for a train to LAX is an automated people mover that connects to the Green and Crenshaw light rail lines just outside airport property. But keep in mind that LAX is their JFK, so the same issues presented with having a proper subway or LIRR line directly to JFK might have been present with having a proper light rail line to a big international airport like with its many terminals arranged in a giant circle like LAX and JFK (LGA is a much smaller airport).
 

 

 

 

The (MTA) was created because New York State was going broke trying to keep the LIRR running. That's why the TBTA was folded into the agency. The TBTA had money because of the toll money they collected. This way the state could avoid directly funding the railroad. Get the surrounding counties onboard as well as the City of New York with it's Transit Authority. It's similar to the NY Lottery gimmick where, IIRC, it's revenue was supposed to be added to the funding for education. Instead the state's funding was slowly reduced. Meanwhile the big player, the PANY&NJ, who had toll money wanted to be a real estate company, too. Remember they had to take on the PATH system, and it's losses, in order to build the WTC. Both states agreed and lo and behold the WTC was built. If it wasn't for government departments occupying much of the office space it wasn't a moneymaker. Throw in NYC and it's near bankruptcy and exactly whom was supposed to fund the (MTA) ? You answered your own question IMO. I actually don't see much of a turf war between the PA and the (MTA) because their core missions are not the same although there is some overlap. Both operate bridges but the (MTA) is a heavy rail commuter agency while the PA deals with the ports and airport portion. That's why I try to point out the LGA AirTrain difference compared to the JFK one. People debate the subway extension through a neighborhood but the JFK AirTrain doesn't run on a city street . It runs down the middle of a Federal Highway. The LAX situation is great in theory but I think both  NY and NJ because of the bi-state covenant which would seem to preclude a deal like that. Just my opinion. No argument intended. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The (MTA) was created because New York State was going broke trying to keep the LIRR running. That's why the TBTA was folded into the agency. The TBTA had money because of the toll money they collected. This way the state could avoid directly funding the railroad. Get the surrounding counties onboard as well as the City of New York with it's Transit Authority. It's similar to the NY Lottery gimmick where, IIRC, it's revenue was supposed to be added to the funding for education. Instead the state's funding was slowly reduced. Meanwhile the big player, the PANY&NJ, who had toll money wanted to be a real estate company, too. Remember they had to take on the PATH system, and it's losses, in order to build the WTC. Both states agreed and lo and behold the WTC was built. If it wasn't for government departments occupying much of the office space it wasn't a moneymaker. Throw in NYC and it's near bankruptcy and exactly whom was supposed to fund the (MTA) ? You answered your own question IMO. I actually don't see much of a turf war between the PA and the (MTA) because their core missions are not the same although there is some overlap. Both operate bridges but the (MTA) is a heavy rail commuter agency while the PA deals with the ports and airport portion. That's why I try to point out the LGA AirTrain difference compared to the JFK one. People debate the subway extension through a neighborhood but the JFK AirTrain doesn't run on a city street . It runs down the middle of a Federal Highway. The LAX situation is great in theory but I think both  NY and NJ because of the bi-state covenant which would seem to preclude a deal like that. Just my opinion. No argument intended. Carry on.

Well, to add a counterpoint, MWAA is both Virginia and DC and is paying for DC Metro to come in. (Well, to be more precise, they are building the extension for DC Metro to operate, which is working out interestingly since MWAA is not used to building rail lines.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, in St. Louis, the bi-state (Missouri and Illinois) Metro Transit light rail serves Lambert Airport, which is owned by the City of St. Louis. It just takes cooperation and consensus between agencies, not everyone wanting it their way or no way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit too early to say, since I don't know if Hochul is going to be a caretaker or if she's going to Gilibrand herself into being one of the most powerful politicians in the state overnight, but at least early indicators are not that she's not a egotistical maniac with something to compensate for (unlike two certain metro area governors)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.